Fun With Up And Down ...
 

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...np1IPHkf5s.mp4

IAABO only give two choices: travel, or legal.

Travel.

Blocked Shot ...
 

My initial comment: Travel. Pivot foot was lifted and then returned to the floor.

Certainly looked like the ancient old fashioned "up and down" call.

I believe that I was incorrect in my initial ruling.

Looked at it again and saw that the shot was blocked (missed that the first time through). So legal. Play on.

From the Misunderstood Rules list:

The shooter can retrieve one’s own airball, if the official considers it to be a shot attempt. The release ends both player control and team control. It is not a violation for that player to start another dribble at that point. When an airborne player keeps control of an attempted shot that is blocked, is unable to release the ball, and returns to the floor with it, that player has not traveled; it is a held ball. If, in a similar situation, the defender simply touches the ball, the airborne shooter maintains control of the ball, chooses not to release the ball, and returns to the floor holding the ball, it’s a traveling violation. If, in a similar situation, the shooter loses control of the ball because of the block, then this is simply a blocked shot, the release ends team control. It is not a violation for that player to start another dribble at that point. When an airborne player tries for goal, sees that the try will be blocked, purposely drops the ball, and touches the ball after it hits the floor, that player has traveled by starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor.

The legality of this play under NFHS rules depends upon whether or not a defender dislodged the ball. If a defensive player knocked the ball out of the offensive player’s hands he may catch it in midair and return to the floor without penalty. However, if the ball simply slips from his grasp after he has become airborne, he may not regain control in the air and return to the floor as that is a traveling violation.
Note: NCAAM rules differently on the second part. Recently, that level issued an interpretation which deems this action legal. The old NFHS ruling of a travel can be found in this forum’s past Interps archive.

Nevadaref Is The King Of Interpretations ...
 

Are My Eyes Deceiving Me ???
 

Which is exactly what I thought that I saw the first time through the video. I was wrong.

I only watched the play once and didn't notice if the ball was dislodged by the defender. If it was then I retract my earlier ruling.

It was. On first viewing, I was thinking travel. It appeared to me that it was likely that something happened to cause him to lose control but it took a few replays for me to see when and where it occurred.

New signal?
 

I would have enjoyed seeing this video go another 10-15 seconds. The coach is on his way to talk with T about why the no call, and I did not see ANY of the 3 officials give any signal that they saw (or didn't see...?) what happened. It would have been interested to see how the trail handled it and how easily the coach was pacified.

In a situation like this, if I see it, I will give a signal that does not look unlike trying to juggle a few imaginary balls. Often as an official, I try to remember we may be the only link between what actually happened on the floor and what the fans/coaches may have seen.

For the record, I agree with the no call, per the discussion indicates.

Mom: "Because I Said So" ...
 

Note: My comments and questions below are not based on this actual video play where the ball was blocked by an opponent, but rather on the annual interpretation cited by Nevadaref (and what some of us wanted to call an "up and down" violation).

While the annual interpretation is very clear that this (ball slips from grasp while airborne) is a violation, I question why?

4-44-3: After coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot:
a. The pivot foot may be lifted, but not returned to the floor, before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.
b. If the player jumps, neither foot may be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal.

Is this not a try for goal?

4-41: ART. 2 A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team’s own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official’s judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal. It is not essential that the ball leave the player’s hand as a foul could prevent release of the ball.
ART. 3 The try starts when the player begins the motion which habitually precedes the release of the ball.

4-21: A fumble is the accidental loss of player control when the ball unintentionally drops or slips from a player’s grasp.

If indeed this is a try for goal (even with the fumble), the ball was released, thus allowing the player to regain possession, even allowing the player to start a new dribble if he had already dribbled.

A shooter is allowed to retrieve his own airball if the official considers it to be a shot attempt.

Stupid NFHS ...
 

Perhaps all three officials were unaware of the twenty-year old annual interpretation, believing this to be a try for goal, allowing the shooter to retrieve his own airball.

Imagine three officials, possibly all with nineteen years experience or less, not knowing this single year interpretation from twenty years ago.

My pet peeve. Stupid NFHS.

Or all three saw the blocked shot and ruled correctly.

A fumble is a fumble, it is not releasing the ball for a try or a pass.

If it were the same as releasing for a try, then if A2 fouled B2 while the ball was airborne during the fumble, you have to allow B2 to shoot bonus free throws.

Release For a Try ...
 

Thanks Raymond. Great point.

So even if one were to consider this to be a throwing for goal, or a throwing for goal attempt, it's not the try itself, but it's only the actual release of the ball for a try, not a fumbling of a try (the release of a fumble), that allows the shooter to retrieve one's own airball.

The rule doesn't say: If the player jumps, neither foot may be returned to the floor before the ball is released on a fumble.

I see your point but I also see the real need for this annual interpretation to simplify and clarify such. Too bad the NFHS didn't consider this annual interpretation important enough to permanently be in the casebook.

Perhaps the officials gave no signal because there was none to give. In many areas, non-approved signals are discouraged and veteran officials often emphasize during camps or pre-season scrimmages, "If you have nothing, signal nothing."

That would not be the best signal as “the juggle” signal merely indicates a momentary loss of control or a lack of control during an initial catch attempt. In this case that would still mean that the play is a traveling violation.
If you wish into indicate that this play was legal, then you should use the “defensive tip” signal which the NFHS just put in for backcourt situations. That would communicate to everyone that you saw a touch by the defense which caused the loss of control.